"the washington times" domestication into federal contracting. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, april 29, to the 13. before they left town and several members of congress to to the sunday shows for a major topic of conversation with the ongoing conflict in this area. among the options that were discussed was the possibility of putting u.s. troops on the ground in that country. that is where we want to begin with you this morning on "washington journal." . what should u.s. options be and should boots on the ground reconsidered? give us a call.

if you are outside of the united states it is 202-585-3883. a our social up on media sites. a very good monday morning to you. we want to take you right to the headline from the washington times this morning. obama urged to get tough on syria.

the white house said last week that military forces loyal to mr. assad probably used -- that story, again from "the washington times" this morning. benjamin parker is a foreign policy senior editor for

foreignpolicy.com. thank you for joining us. take as to the latest on u.s. options that are discussed, boots on the ground was discussed yesterday on the sunday shows. where are things going right now? atst: at a pretty to look what intelligence is actually done. this conflict has been going on for dnearly two years. thee developments threaten intensity of international involvement. here's a quick time line. april 18 government but a letter to the u.s. general informing them that chemical weapons have been used around three cities. it was well samples, witness interviews, rebel material.

at a security conference it was said that -- [inaudible] the u.s. administration have been given its intelligence. week hasurse of one gone from -- really the administration has gone from one reported back in january or there was a cable thatwith the notion chemical weapons had been used. really within the past week has gone from no catboat -- from no chemical weapons being used in syria to a 180. it has turned the situation where it is one option we can look at. host: i want to play kick from the sunday show.

about one of asked those options. [video clip] >> you do not need but on the ground in the international action to bring this thing down to close quickly. the whole region is going to fall into chaos if this goes on until the end of the year. pauker, take us through some of the options. that: there is the fear the syrian conflict could imperil the entire region. there are other eastern states that are potential flashpoint. i do not think the administration has a willingness to get involved in any sort. [no audio] -- some nonlethal aid to rebels. primarily allowed the assistance to qatar, saudi

arabia, and turkey and other states. there are intelligence assets on the border in turkey and reportedly inside the country that have been getting some of the aid to make sure it is not falling into the wrong hands. the administration has declared some elements of the rebel group tied toist al qaeda. supporting the rebels -- we do not know who these people are. there is concern there. even in the libyan conflict there was a strong concern that was an overstretch from the west and that the powers and mandate given to them for international intervention had been exceeded. one thing i would like to -- [no audio] at the united nations security council a precedent that was

uncomfortable with two major powers, russia and china -- would meet of rice or abstain from a few to authorize a legally sanctioned intervention. they are very unlikely to do so. host: at this point is assad's defeat more of a matter of if and when? guest: people have been saying that for two years. it is difficult to speculate the rebel army, according to haveters i have spoken to, made some extraordinary gains. seemed toas decelerate. -- [no audio] host: benjamin pauker of foreign policy.

thank you for joining us. we're taking your calls on the u.s. response and the possibility of boots on the ground. here's a front-page of the wall street journal.

here is a chart going along with that story. airu.s. analysis of syria defense from "the wall street journal," ttoday. a few of the systems they point out in that round up is the sa-5 surface toultiple air missile that has a range of 175 miles.

you can read all about syria's air defense system into de's "wall street journal." ande taking your calls thoughts on the subject. posts are coming into our facebook page, www.facebook.com/cspan. --nard writes in we are taking your calls and tweets in this for segment of open "washington journal." we will go to preston from that and rouge, louisiana on our

democrat line. your thoughts on the u.s. response to syria? taking myank you for call. i do not believe we need any troops in any other country at this time. we are coming off of a 10-year war. we cannot be engaged and lest we are engaged. we can do a lot of things to cripple syria. we cannot afford to put any more troops on any of the crowd in the world than our own soil. thank you. host: preston from batteries. i want to show a clip from the center shows yesterday. this is a democrat also talking about this issue and the possibility of boots on the ground. [video clip] >> i do not think you ever want to rule it out because i think has reallythis thing

deteriorated and it is not really at a tipping point. i do not want to say "absolutely not." absolutely -- we do not want to absolutelyess thit is necessary. if you are outside of the united states tweets phone lines set up for you. we want to bring you the latest from syria. this is according to "the associated press," - -

we are taking your thoughts as the situation developed and has been developing for well over a year. we want to get to jack now from minnesota on our independent line. good morning. a couple of quotes, it is deja vu all over again. a quote from court the delaware describing the united states as the united states of any ship. this is very familiar. the absolute avalanche of propaganda all whipped up by the neocons.

you have to give them credit. they are evil. but boy their plan is succeeding. the plan is very well outlined and it has been there for awhile, the clean break agenda. look it up. host: you do not think we need to do anything in syria? caller: the united states should quit doing what it has been doing. overseen the distribution of 3,500 tons of undoubtedly financed by s coming in from jordan and turkey. we have undoubtedly got our people involved in these assassinations. does the use of chemical weapons concerns you as well -- concern you at all? caller: that concerns me as much

as the weapons of mass destruction that were supposed to be in iraq. that should be on our conscience for 100 years, to make hash of another country. syria was a very nice country. the christians were protecting syria. the christian community in syria is back in the sharp because they do not want these jihad basshar is back in because they did not want these jihadis -- a december 13from through 16th pole of 2012. the was conducted by washington post abc news. 70% of thent only public supported military involvement in syria.

isouple of questions of what and how they would feel of u.s. response. if chemical weapons were used the number jumped to 63%. if syria loses control of chemical weapons 70% say they would support military involvement with 21% opposed. if syria were to attack a u.s. ally and its neighbors 69% supported involvement with 22% opposed. citys go to dale california on our republican line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not think the discussion is that all realistic. it is quite clear if the united states intervenes in syria will be at war with russia. for the first time in decades we are enjoying their relationship with russia in regards to national security.

i am puzzled that there is even a discussion of u.s. intervention. host: what about the idea of a "no-fly" zone? members on the sunday show yesterday not going so far as to support boots on the ground but what about if no-fly zone? caller: that would be difficult to enforce because the russians excellentin place an year deterrent system. host: what you think the u.s. should do? caller: i do not see we have an option other than to go to the un and raise concerns about humanitarian issues and hopefully a coalition can -- a coalition conform for u.n. action. host: do you think that is an effective route at this point? caller: it could be very productive. it was the un that enabled u.s.

intervention for the persian and second gulf war. they can do a lot of things in syria. the problem is with the u.s. progressively pursuing the humanitarian causes. host: a call this morning from out in california. here is a tweet from steve harrison -- i also want appointee to this piece by john bolton, a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute --

is that his latest act of foreign policy -- rober

"the wall street journal" today. we will go to the democratic line. good morning. i am with the lady in california. i think we need to bring the troops home and put them on the border. i do not believe we need to send our troops forward to other countries for another eight or tenure fight. or 10-year fight. ourink it is time we bring troops home. we have to protect our borders. let the united nations takeover. host: the use of chemical weapons of which u.s. allies have said happened over there, does that change your thinking?

caller: not now. the lady brought up with the some arguection -- that the united nations should step in. i think that is their job. we give enough money to them. let us see them go to work. as a citizen of the united states i am tired of taking care of other countries but we have people crossing our borders, taking their jobs, and blowing us up. it is time we put our troops on the border. host: lawyer from indiana this morning. in other international news as we continue to discuss u.s. options with syria, here is a piece -- ra b that as north korea.

one other piece on north korea from the "christian science monitor," -- in side-by-side pieces' the writes -- if you want to read about those two ideas that is from this week's addition of "the

christian science monitor." we will now go to kevin from fish haven idaho on our independent line. caller: good morning for taking my call. understands i do not have any party of valuation. -- party affiliation. we have a catch-22 on the situation. should we get involved in the middle east? no. when the president turns around and draws the line in the sand -- we are talking about the appearance of strength and weakness of our borders. after 9/11. we were not attacked in american soil since the revolutionary war.

the presidenthink needs to back up at redline? caller: we can't do a no-fly zone. militaryy zone is a attack. amazes me about the istenign tos i am liztening t some of the calls. republicans the would be hammering no with the u.n.. now the democrats are being a bit more hawkish and all of a sudden roar a lot of your republican callers are taking the stance they have 10 years ago. the american people are pushing policy even with their representatives and putting them

in a very unique bind. we're not going to have strained relations with syria, especially with a chuckle warfare. that was made perfectly clear. we're going to have a coalition -- is going to be able to the use of chemical weapons will internet -- will unite the international community. i think it will. i think everyone is on board for nuclear proliferation and chemical proliferation. hopefully it is not going to be a boost on the ground type thing where it will

be fallout war, it will be a coalition force that the united states will get together. host: kevin from idaho. on twitter -- i want to go to janice now from louisiana on our democratic line. good morning. bishop not be an option to go into syria. -- it should not be an option to go into syria. our troopsbring home, take care of this country, and help others when a bull. the fact is we are making enemies. our strategy is screwed up and our tactics are insane. our strategy is to arrest terrorism to protect this

country by becoming terrorists ourselves. invading,tics by bombing, and killing too many innocent people. we must not be afraid to do the right thing and killing is not right. nst: i want to point some ews out today, here is the front age of "the charlotte observer," -- and the nomination would make h

that is the front page of today's's "charlotte observer." that nomination expected to happen today. back to the phones on the subject of options in the united states and syria. we want to go to ian from oceanside, new york on our republican line. good morning. caller: i just want everybody to be real wary and not jump into quick.

somebody set off a suicide typecast to draw us in. if it is not thousands of people i cannot think it is a problem. host: you do not believe assad was responsible, despite what we are hearing from allies in this conflict? very weary ind be this area. my grandfather was building for the army ages ago. my grandmother is turning 98 and my grandfather passed away. it was troubled times back then from syria, all around that whole area. -- them to try to draw a san to draw us in, we are in. we have to be weary of the assad to the ability. -- assad capability.

to not jive. i cannot think it is host: think it iso not assad. cominge have information in for multiple allies. let us go to harriman, new york on our independent line. the one thing -- i believe first of all we should be fine -- we should be following what our founding fathers said. we are engaged in these wars without even declaring a war. i cannot know if the american people need to wake up to the fact we need to declare wars. third of all. been al qaeda?ve these of the people that attacked the towers.

and now we are supporting them to take over syria. insanity rules the day. mike is up next from washington d.c. on our democratic line. good morning. i just think we have to be very cautious. since 9/11 and our own economic problems we have to be cautious as to two main things. we do have enough problems at home where it really need to take care of -- where we really need to take care of it. we have become the country that gets involved somewhere else and trust to help other countries. we use our own resources and risk retaliation. we have seen it through various homeland threats and violence in general coming from abroad and

at home. i think we need to be careful before we jump into every conflict that we see. host: on twitter -- one of a story i want to point out to you on this subject from "the new york times," i want to go now to jim from

farmingdale, new jersey on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think somebody once said you war -- win a civil

if you cannot trust president obama to do or back up anything, whether it is closing down guantanamo bay or the benghazi situation. began over a cartoon. you think we should not back up his redline? caller: it is absolutely meaningless. look how that was handled. anyone in the country can go to , pontian the uranium found in iraq and read the story. 550 tons of uranium out of iraq. it cannot trust our journalists in this country. we cannot trust are democrats. this president is doing absolutely nothing.

committing troops to the situation would be a waste of american blood. i cannot see us doing this. host: that is jim from farmingdale new jersey. we're taking your calls. one other story on the international front in iraq. they are inciting sectarian conflict. all but one of the channels are aligned with backers. the decision will not banished s

we are taking your calls on the subject of what united states should do about syria, boots on the ground. the phone lines -- ryan is up next from colonial heights, virginia. good morning. think we need to follow the constitution. the constitution does not say anything about the president drawing a red line in the sand.

we live in the age of ron paul and his foreign policy. i think bishop draw americans back to ron paul, taking a look at the things he was talking about over the last few years since 2007 since he started his war against the gop. the sources you are using are credible. we cannot even trust our journalists in this country anymore. the internet is definitely the best place to get your information. is brian from colonial heights, virginia. let us go to george from pennsylvania on our independent line. no way should be get involved in syria. i think we should have learned

what happened in iraq. a five trillion dollar war now between iraq and afghanistan. the defenses they have over there -- we're going to create a no-fly zone? we cannot afford it. , defend ourops home southern border, and read it we learned. they're no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. i do not believe we can believe in intelligence. i think the republican party is pushing for us to go to another war we cannot afford. one other issue coming up this week is that senate primary in massachusetts that is happening on tuesday. here is the story --

june 25 is the general election, the primary is tomorrow. york times" new rom today -- that is stephen lynch and below him it is edward markey, both

members of congress. is up from montana on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: i think it is a slippery slope if we go. the regime is really infringed. you have china on one side and russia on the other side. it really makes for a bad situation. it doesn't matter who is an orice, if we had mitt romney president obama right now, we are looking at the worst of it. the bad thing about it is if we bomb them and hit one of their buttons of mass destruction

plants it could possibly be worse if it hit one of their weapons of mass destruction plant it could possibly -- and hit one of their weapons of mass destruction plant it could possibly be worse. not the onlyas discussion on the sunday shows. a lot of talk in the fallout of the boston marathon bombing. here's the story from "the washington post" today --

we are quite to talk about the subject in our next segment today on the "washington journal," the fallout of the boston bombing and lessons learned. if you have a suggestion for "washington journal," you can send that to us. @cspanwjn tweet us at > we have a couple of minutes left. we want to go to pam from montclair, virginia on the independent line. your thoughts on syria? caller: i am calling to object to the term boots on the ground. i think the fact that we're

sending children of mothers and fathers in to die -- i know we will say they volunteered for the military and that is their job. i still think we need to be cautious in using that term. host: what should the u.s. to this point, if anything? i feel like diplomacy. we need to be sending our state department to them to talk. i feel like communication is the big thing we should be doing. we should not be threatening. host: thank you for the call. angel is up next from woodbridge virginia on our democratic line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. last lady andhe the callers before them.

and we should leave the syrian country to the syrian people. diplomacy is the right way to go. it hurts nobody toalk. we should talk./ host: thanks for the call. one other story i want to point today,"ou from "usa --

you can read about that in "usa toy." one other story, this one from "wabc," -- six months since hurricane sandy ravaged new york. one other note that is happening today at the white house

president is making remarks at the national academy of 150th anniversary. you can find that on our website at c-span.org. that is pointed to for our first segment of "washington journal." cilluffosecurity frank will be here to talk about the latest development in the boston bombing. later, the national journal correspondent shane goldmacher on the upcoming midterm election. ♪

>> if you are generating a government and you try to generate new revenue silicon valley has the answers. if you are trying to explore and ignite better innovation within your company, silicon valley has the answers. from the opera nor standpoint, how does of entrepreneurship develops -- how is launch pinners of different in silicon valley? some of it is based on a failure and rewarding one's experiences. it is also recognizing that you can be part of the process of adopting other people's ideas or you may have the idea for the next big thing. the bottom line is there is an audit -- there is an authenticity to the way things are done in silicon valley. >> what makes silicon valley tick? tonight on the "the communicators."

age 16 andied at helped her husband teach -- and helped teach her husband to read and write better. by the time her husband assumes the presidency she is in poor health as cruisers of to a second-floor room in the white house. meet elisa johnson, what of the 17th president, andrew johnson, as we continue our series. andht live on the [captioning performed by national captioning institute] . -- washington journal continues. host: law officials continue to study the lessons learned. we are joined by a former white house special assistant for homeland security and director of the george washington university's homeland security

policy institute to discuss these issues. lot of discussion on the sunday shows yesterday over whether the u.s. information system failed leading up to this incident. we want to play a clip of lindsey gramm is today, senator lindsay gramm on the "face the nation." [video clip] thehe fbi investigated obama brother but never shared the information with the people in boston. when he goes back to russia in january 2012 the da test does not share the information -- the dhs does not share the information with the fbi or cia. he creates a you to the channel where he gets radical extremist videos that he is interacting with. it is a failure to share information. these obvious warning signs -- we are going back to the pre-

9/11 still typing. your thoughts on information sharing? caller: it is always a challenge among state and federal authorities. it is early two 0.2 far into what was and was not shared. we do know that his information was untied. to whether or not that information was fully tapped, utilize, and extrapolate it is the real question here. months traveling overseas in russia is where you are quantified a lot of information and clues that and hopefully put together the entire mosaic of the investigation. want to talk about the issue of still piping. after 9/11.

steelre a concern about pipes coming back in? your friend helped build up the home as security apparatus after the attack. guest: prior to 1911 we had a lot of need to know. the question is are sharing the right information? the databases are relatively classified. what wet sure precisely are seeing in the media. we believe they are in a good position to share additional information. i think the information sharing environment is always going to be a challenge. it is always going to be imperfect. i think it has improved dramatically since 9/11. was a frank cilluffo former white house special assistant for homeland security from 2001 to 2003. talk more about the russian

connection here and our ability to cooperate with them in this investigation. guest: that is going to be the key. we have a unique opportunity to work closely with the russians who historically have not been very good friends in a number of national security matters. i think this is a turning point. i think this is an opportunity to facilitate a liaison between the two countries. obviously russia has the better read on some of the jihadi and extremist organizations in chechnya. i think they in fact will have some meaningful information and that they are willing to share that with our liaison intelligence services and specifically the fbi. ironically i still work on a russian organized crime cases in the 1990's. it was very difficult to get information from the russians. every once in awhile to will flood the system with information. they have a signal to noise challenge. it was that you cannot make heads or tails out of the information that was actually

being shared. is a uniquehere opportunity here and i hope that the russians live up to their partnership here. think time will tell. this is a unique opportunity. host: we are taking your calls and comments in this segment. if you want to talk to frank cilluffo, currently he is the director of the hamas security policy institute at george washington university. the numbers are on the screen now. we wanted to get to the headline from "national public radio," -- we talked about the intelligence leading up to this incident. talk about the reaction and how would you grade the homeland security response from the incident forward? guest: prevention issues aside, whether or not he should have been on the radar screen, the

response was incredibly powerful. here you had ems sprung to action immediately. you had the medical response that was robust. the tree of was very effective. -- the tree oshawa's very effective. it was nothing short of -- the triage was very effective. it was nothing short of terrific. i also think in the unfolding of the offense the boston police department is now the gold standard. they set the bar for how to communicate with social media. they were dispelling myths and false information. i think if you were to look at first responder perspective, and also good american citizens, cannot help but say that was an a-plus.

because of some of that training and some of that exercise and we saw come into play. host: you talk about the people who were on the scene to were not officially first responders, the price standards. talk about how their reaction has changed in a post 9/11 world. guest: we talk about resilience and we want to build up a resilience community that can absorb unfortunate crises because both from a first response standpoint but we do not want to live our lives in fear, obviously. what you're seeing is the government has improved its capacities incredibly since 9/11 but we will never be in a position to protect everything, everywhere, all the time, from every perpetrator. we have to minimize the risk but we will never be at 100% securities. i do not want to live in a society that is 100% secure

because that would mean real draconian steps that are being taken. what you want to be able to do is focus on the real perpetrators and real bad guys. he wants to be able to improve your intelligence capacity to get the bomb before it goes off. it is worth noting that there have been 65 + plots since 9/11 that have been prevented. never quite get to that point where we are 100%. what we want to do is minimize the risk and make it more difficult for the adversary to commit acts of terrorism. the boston case was the subject of the sunday shows. we want to -- a bit more from the "washington post" story -- a democrat from maryland told abc news, according to the

story, there is a person's of interest. mike mccall discussed the role of trainers. he said, " the fact -- what you know about the ongoing investigation and connections overseas? host: it is two reports that was looking at internet facilitated internet-o -- facilitated radical organization. obviously when you look at someone who has been trained that is a much more significant threat. it is certainly within the realm of possibility from a tradecraft

standpoint that this was straight out of a magazine. think the tradecraft is a little more sophisticated, --ecially the destination in the detonation device, which is not out of the magazine. role inrnet plays a facilitating radicalization, where you have those inspiring. you hear about people of interest. you are looking for two primary one who is radicalizing these individuals, and two did they receive any training to eat a lot enforcement and to make more deadly devices? -- to invade law enforcement and to make more deadly devices? the two cases, the man who is

traveling to afghanistan and wishing to join up with the caliban, -- with teh taliban. -- instead of fighting over here, go back to the united states where you are quick to be of greater value because you are familiar with the environment. you have a: passport, the ability to travel freely in the united states. that is a big concern. we have over 500 europeans fighting in syria. people goint these back home. we have americans fighting in syria. we have americans fighting in yemen. we have americans fighting in somalia. that is a concern and something we need to take very seriously. as much as you can learn at home with experts training you, elevates the threat level by many orders of magnitude. host: we are taking your calls

on lessons learned. we are talking to frank cilluffo this morning. he is the head of the homeland security policy institute at george washington university. george is caller: i keep hearing about homeland security. who do they plan on using the ammunition on? guest: i don't have all the facts on the purchase of ammunition, but i do think it is a legitimate question. dhs is the second-largest law enforcement agency, so they -- all law-enforcement agencies are looking to ammunition to be able to defend themselves. legitimatere some

questions i don't have the answer to, unfortunately. host: another headline from npr -- to theout the decision institute a lockdown in the man and. how is it being viewed in retrospect? guest: i don't love the term lockdown. it was a shelter in place that was actually instituted in this case. the scale and scope of this was extraordinary. you had an entire city, but the circumstances were extraordinary. you had an active ongoing very dangerous situation. the so-called lockdown or shelter in place protocol has been in place for natural disasters. they have been in place for an active shooter types of situations. basically, it is too dangerous to evacuate, they institute a shelter in place. host: and i think to this level? guest: this is unprecedented, but so were the circumstances. you had two individuals on the

los who had just perpetrated a major terrorist attacks and had shootouts with law-enforcement and they were throwing ied's from their car. it's not your everyday situation. i think what you saw was a decision made by local officials. i have been quoted many times saying it was prudent. i think in this situation it was. not only do you keep people out of harm's way, you keep people out of law enforcement's way to able to finish off the investigation and identify and catch the perpetrators. host: we are taking your thoughts on lessons learned after the boston bombings. onsterling, colorado, tim our independent line. caller: good morning. i have a comment about all the past government stuff that has been allowed to go on in the any partther that has

of being responsible for the things that are going on in the u.s. with the american people being killed. host: what you mean when you say past things? caller: bailout stuff to go on. a lot of the people would come into this country and go back out. and homeland security being breached by them going back over and learning things about bombs and on the internet and all this stuff. guest: i think one of the greatest dimensions missing right now in our pushterterrorism is the back on the radiology. to paraphrase bill clinton, "it's not the economy but the ideologies." right here i think we have had major successes overseas going after the leadership of al qaeda, its affiliates, and its

franchisees. and we need to continue to turn to the kinetic responses to those terrorists leadership. but we have not done enough to go after the etiology, to expose its hypocrisy, its allies. -- we have not done enough to go after the ideologies. we should really be focusing on the victims, their dreams, their opportunities lost. i think there's much more we can do to expose the hypocrisy and ultimately defeat and attack the ideologies. that's where the which may be dead with osama bin laden or anwar al-aulaqi or some of these other significant actors, which is not trivial. but there narrative lives on and we have to expose that and attack it. host: a question on twitter --

guest: no. the terminology weapons of mass destruction is chemical biological, nuclear. i do feel the statute, the laws we're going after, yes, this was a weapon of mass destruction. it was not necessarily the way most people think of as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, but it caused mass harm, killed a number of people, and injured so many more. so in terms of how we prosecutor in the statutes, yes, i feel that's appropriate. that are these the threats homeland security will after look at where the future, conventional explosives as opposed to chemical or nuclear explosives? change whatrt of they will be looking for? guest: you have always had to

look at a whole spectrum of potential weapons. obviously, you are most concerned about a nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare agent, because that can have catastrophic effects. likelihood may not be as high. the ability to build some of these weapons and ultimately use them and deploy them requires a much higher level of sophistication, but at the same time you look for the worst-case scenario, which may not have great likelihood, but the consequences are so great, or the higher likelihood events where the consequences may not be as significant, but, as we all know, even conventional explosives can cause a lot of harm. we did make it harder, for example, for people to build huge weapons, fertilizer, for example. there are trigger point where someone were to try to acquire plastic explosives or fertilizer

types of weapons, that law enforcement would be tipped off. in a way, it pushed off some of threatsher scale pe where you were not able to monitor all sorts of black powder or other sorts of devices that are being used. we will have to defend against both. at the end of the day, there are capabilities we have seen overseas with the department of defense. this is a group that's been following the improvised explosive device networks of al bayda, the taliban, and other insurgents overseas. we need to learn some of those lessons that we of seen in battlefield situations there, translate that domestically. anne applebaum has always been a terrorist weapon of choice. but we need to also start worrying about computer network attacks, cyber attack. obviously, we can never take our eye off the ball in terms of weapons of mass destruction,

especially with state sponsors. countries like north korea and the government of iran and its proxies', that is not something we can ignore. at the same time, that is not the only thing we can afford to focus on. host: we're talking about lessons learned since the boston bombings with frank cilluffo, the director of the homeland security policy institute at george washington university. maria kearny, new jersey on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering, down here for the last couple months there have been psa's for sheltering in in place. i was concerned police cannot cast the second suspect in boston. doris -- will be in indoors where they cannot witness anything.

i wonder if the gentleman can comment on the safest of homeland security and because we are not allowed to enforce our immigration laws that are on the books and we have millions of unvetted aliens here that are more of a risk to us than anything overseas. host: a couple questions for you. guest: the shelter in place, and is an important one. these articles that have been in place for natural disasters, chemical or radiological types of situations, either natural or hostile, as well as active shooter types of situations. so these decisions should never be made by the federal government. it should be made by the local officials who are closest to the scene and ultimately local officials, because this is a political decision that has to be made. host: when is a protocols, this was something of the boston

police had worked out for themselves, not a decision to federal authorities made? guest: as far as i know, and it should not be a federal decision. this is something ultimately a political officials -- that's why you elect your local officials. they are elected to make some difficult situations. when you saw here was the overriding concern a public safety first. that's the number-one priority. unfortunately, there will be other situations where that is in place. alternately, those are local decisions that are being made. and i think they ought to be trained. you've got to think about some of these situations. the time to begin thinking about this is not when something bad happens and the balloon goes up. you wanted able to think about this well in advance. the role the general public place is very interesting. as the caller stated, it was an alert individual that ultimately to identifythread

the suspect. found his boat bloody. >guest: something amiss. host: he found that in his backyard. guest: yes, when he went outside to have a cigarette. this individual played a key role and immediately called boston police and then we have the individual arrested. host: let's go to rebecca from california, on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a dhhs employee. i worked in emigrations. i'm using an alias to protect my privacy. if you see something and say something, the public really

does not know about it. two individuals were actually american citizens. in my opinion, american citizens ourselves can be our greatest threat because we're not suspicious. these individuals were naturalized at very young ages where background checks were not needed to be conducted. if they were, nothing would come up. an officerking about having 15 seconds to talk to is anvet that it authentic document and then checking the system. how needed these employees are and how much money to allocate money for that so they can do their jobs and not

feel rushed or pressured to make sure the person coming back into the country, regardless if they are permanent resident, immigrant, non-immigrant, or otherwise, doesn't have any pings in the different systems that they check and that they are safe to enter the country against. guest: rebekah, i think you bring up a number of points. one thing i would like to clarify is that tamerlan had not received his citizenship in the united states. that is an area that is of interest, because he had applied and had not been given the full green light. his younger brother was. in a twisted kind of way, he was granted citizenship on the anniversary of 9/11. i think that you raised some big points, but the bigger point is officers, they

have prevented a major terrorist incident, a millennium plot, well before 9/11, where there was an alert order agent who saw something out of place, some activity, and prevented a major terrorist attack on the united states in seattle and los angeles. so i do think that you raise a significant point. thehink we need to build up education and intelligence awareness of our border protection and beyond. at the end of the day, we've got to invest in our people. it's not going to be a technological solution alone. here you saw an alert citizen identify dzhokhar tsarnaev. in previous cases we have seen federal authorities who have had years of experience be able to

prevent incidents. and sometimes it is just getting -- it is improving your likelihood of luck. that may have been the case with the millennium bomber before 2000. host: this person brings up the campaign. if you want to read on that. and a question from robert samson on twitter -- if you could talk a little about that. guest: i have heard no one from boston complain. i have heard nothing but the opposite. if you were going to do a survey, i think the people of boston not only for their own safety acknowledged and

recognize that was a smart decision to be made. so i am not familiar. you have a lot of people second- guessing from washington and elsewhere. but at the end of the day these are local decisions. i think the local community and the people of boston supported and efforts of boston pd others to protect them for their own public safety. host: we can put up the fourth amendment of the u.s. constitution, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses -- not something you have heard about any lawsuits or anything like that? guest: not that i'm aware of. the people of boston seemed to be very supportive of their local officials and the ems and the hospitals. and boston pd.

i think boston pd related to the bar for how to communicate in the midst of crisis. theseys you don't have -- events are unfolding as they occur. and you had cameras tracking the movement of boston pd and others as to whether or not they're going to move in or move out of this particular situation. cody simpson was my kind of wake-up call to how you can see an event unfolds live on tv. simpson. here you had all the events unfolding as the occurred in boston. there was a lot of misinformation, a lot of bad information, as there always is in the midst of a crisis. ins called the fog of war, the military's integration. at the end of the day, i think boston police realized they could either shape the information or be shaped by it.

in this case, public safety was the overriding concern. they worked quite effectively. host: here's a story from the "washington times" -- about lessons learned from the boston bombings. linda is up next on mount pleasant, south carolina, a democrat. good morning. good morning.morning:r frank, i really not buying what you are talking about this morning. i'm very instinctual person. from the get go, i became terrorized by the response to this so-called bombing. what the lastth

person stated in his twitter about our fourth amendment. i really feel it was overkill. has anybody in the media ever considered that maybe these were not the actual suspects? every picture i saw on the television were independent pictures of backpacks, cars, people walking with backpacks on that had exploded. there were all independent pictures of each other, which i say it's propaganda. host: we will give you a chance to respond to her concern about what had been out there about the case so far. guest: by the perpetrators themselves, in this case the one who is alive, has acknowledged his role. i think there's so much evidence here, not only by the law enforcement authorities but that have been identified by cameras and other citizens who have

picked ups that informationpickedo, to think that dzhokhar tsarnaev and his brother were not responsible for this act is absolutely incorrect. there will always be conspiracies. there will always be misinformation in these sorts of events. and that's why we have the system we have in place. but i think the evidence here is 0ncredibly strong and i have doubt in my mind that these two were responsible before the attack. from oklahoma city, oklahoma, republican. caller: good morning. one of the things i love about c-span is that occasionally you allowed dissident voices to be heard. i am a dissident. i am but a ron paul libertarian. some ofme just say that

the facts of this case tends to show that this w indeed a false flag event. of the two the uncle gentlemen who are charged, who i the uncle was, to theto the -- married th daughter of grisham fuller. host: is it unusual for this conspiracy theories? guest: they always are. and we need to be open to all sorts of ideas. in this case, there's nothing to suggest that there's a false flag of any sort. unfortunately, we live in a dangerous environment. of what most people don't know is how many cases have been

prevented and preempted. again, the fbi has prevented jihadist.lots of homegrown jihadist no one wishes to have the threat, but it's real and some people act upon their views. at the end of the day, i feel we need to do more to go after otherwise weies, would always be tactically stopping particular incidents, which we need to be able to do, but we need to get. to the route across host: frank cilluffo is the former special assistant to the president of homeland security from 2001 through 2003, a principal adviser to governor tom ridge following the 9/11 attacks. the former vice chairman of the future of terrorism task force, chaired by congressman lee hamilton. he served as senior policy person for the center of strategic and international

studies and is currently the director of homeland security policy institute at george washington university. is a next onchigan our democrat line. caller: hi. i just want to know how many warnings the united states needed from russia? they got one call. they should've stayed on it and watched this guy. now they want to blame. blame it's ridiculous. when we get a tip, they should stay on it. i wonder why they're not being held accountable. quit blaming other people from our own mistakes. that's all i have to say. guest: i think you bring up some points. i don't have all the details. i don't think anyone does. keep in mind that the russians of not always been the best of partners in these sorts of endeavour's. i would be very curious what additional information -- if i'm

hearing correctly, it was dutch ruppersberger, the ranking member bows intelligence ommittee on intelligence who claimed the fbi followed up and tried to get additional information from the russian backerparts and came with nothing. all that said and done, i think that is the crux of the matter. we need to know what we knew and when. hopefully, will tell precisely what that means. i would not jump immediately that there was a lot of information there. i think now we have an opportunity in this joint investigation. keep in mind, six months is a longtime to head overseas. if you look immediately after his return to the united states, use of the increase in extremist and jihadist videos on his youtube account. you saw all sorts of concerns

.hat would have rung bells where was he in, who was the meeting with, did he have any individuals who trained him on explosives, which is a big concern? and was even further radicalized when you went to of dagestan? beenin mind, chechnya has islamist extremism for a long time, much of it focused on russia, because they were fighting for autonomy, but not entirely. if you have a number of section -- of chechens wh o have fought alongside al qaeda. so there is an area of concern. one of its leaders -- one of the leaders of the separatist moment more or less aligned himself with the broader global jihadist concerns. so you had all, always try to

coopt local concerns for their broader global sets of issues. and individuals may have fallen prey to that. so i think it's fair to ask what we knew and when and what the russians provided. it's also fair to suggest there may not be as much information as all of us may think there is. the real question now is will they actually share more information? ofthe russians have a ton intelligence on any chechen threats or an extremist in that region? host: on twitter -- guest: that's a good question, but again that's not so much dhs in that case. that's law-enforcement to law- enforcement. that's more fbi and spi would

work with the broader u.s. intelligence community. was obviously something that warranted in of concern by the russians and those are legitimate questions. host: on lessons learned, can you address gary on twitter -- can you talk about that incident, the shootout that happened very early friday morning? guest: obviously, i don't have all the specific details on the shootout. but keep in mind, you had a two individuals who had just committed a heinous terrorist attack. armeddividuals who were and were actually throwing improvised explosive devices, not only a pressure cooker device but also pipe bombs. so you had a very dangerous situation unfold.

and i don't have all the statistics on how boston pd handled that case. two things i think are interesting, it's rare for the fbi to put out additional information. in this case, they put out a lot for the entire world, these are the two individuals we are looking for. i think it's fair to say that once those photographs were disseminated and shared, it forced them to act hastily. it forced them to make mistakes, because they were flushed out. host: the tsarnaevs? guest: yes. they may have had other attacks planned where if they had the time, they may have been successful, unfortunately. here you have a very interesting case. it's rare for the bureau of to come out in that respect. it paid dividends and ultimately forced the brothers to make

mistakes, act hastily, and law- enforcement to improve the likelihood of capturing them. host: david is up next from virginia on our republican line. good morning. caller: hi. i was following up on a quest gentelady had earlier. she had a two-part question. the gentleman answered the first part of left the second part out about why homeland security is being sued by the border patrol agents for not being allowed to do their jobs and abyan vetted illegal immigrants -- all of the eight unvetted illegal immigrants. guest: i'm not familiar with the lawsuit, specifically. but clearly we need to be able to enforce our laws in terms of illegal immigration. i think there's a broader immigration question that the country has to grapple with. but we need to be able to

enforce the laws on the books and act accordingly, at least. host: thanks so much for joining us this morning. guest: thank you. host: next, the national journal correspondent shane goldmacher will talk to us on the behind- the-scenes efforts to recruit congressional candidates. later, the washington times correspondent joins us for a money segment. this week we are taking a closer look at federal contractors. first, a news update from c- span radio. if cracks a decline 30 a.m. eastern time. new jersey governor chris christie speaking earlier on msnbc says president obama "has kept every promise he has made about helping the state recover from superstorm sandy." the republican governor says he disagrees with president obama on 95% of things, but that he was really doing his job after the storm try to get help for his state. turning to politics, former republican south carolina governor mark sanford and the

democrats for a elizabeth colbert busch debate tonight for the first time in their race for the state's first congressional district seat. the candidates and green party candidate eugene plant will compete may 7 in a special election to fill the vacant congressional seat once held by tim scott. the citadel is hosting the event, starting at 7:00. you can wash it on c-span or listen to on c-span radio. elderly survivors of the holocaust and veterans who helped liberate them are gathering for what could be their last big reunion at the holocaust memorial museum. former president bill clinton and a nobel peace prize laureate, " dedicated the museum at its opening in 1993, will deliver the keynote speeches for as it marks its 20th anniversary. live coverage on c-span radio and c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> if you are trying to generate as a government and are looking for ways to generate new revenue, silicon valley has the answers.

if you are trying to explore and ignite better innovation within your company, silicon valley has the answers. from an entrepreneurial standpoint, how is entrepreneurship different in silicon valley than other places, which is distinctly is. cut so much of it is often based on failure and learned from one's experiences, but it is also recognizing that you can be part of the process of adopting other people's ideas or you may have ideas for the next big thing. but the bottom line is there's an authenticity to the way things are done in silicon valley that is very accepted no matter who you are. >> that's tonight's on the communicators at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: well would anybody want to run for congress? that's the headline of a recent cover story in the national journal. here to discuss his story on how

both political parties subdues and sometimes browbeat potential recruits, we are joined by shane goldmacher of the national journal. if you say in your piece that congress can be a tough sell these days. why is congress such a tough sell for a would-be candidate? guest: because we are closed to the capital and you hear a lot about the dissension that going on. there was a poll earlier in january where they discussed what is congress compared to? it traded on the same scale as a colonoscopy. not the most popular of institutions these days. these folks are trying to recruit candidates to run for congress. their job is to convince people this is the place they want to spend their lives and their careers. job is it to recruit potential members of congress? guest: interesting question to the political parties are the leading arms for the recruitment process. the democrats have the senate and house to try to recruit candidates. republicans have the senate and house.

those are the leading edge of getting people to run for congress. the process is fascinating. it is a lot like politics but all. lot like college football. they go out to identify talent all across the country and pick the best people to run for congress. when they do, they have to tell them that this is what they want to do. and in order to do that, they have to convince them, their wives, their children, their family members. is a you say this thankless job, in your piece. guest: it's a lot of work. when you work for the political communities, the campaign arms for congress. host: these are the democratic congressional campaign committee, national republican congressional committee for the house, and the senate has -- guest: >> the exact same groups. the democratic senatorial campaign committee. the national republican senatorial committee. those four groups, the institutional arm of the

political parties. when people talk about the permanent campaign, that's what it is. by now this is the time of year where voters are not paying a lot of attention to politics or who's running for congress, but this is the peak recruiting season for these recruiters. so they are going out trying to make the cell to people. , the housel democrats oppose the campaign arm, he walked off the floor after the speech, whipped out his iphone and start typing out an e-mail to all the people he wants to run for congress and said, did you watched the president's speech? because if you did, indeed of years you will be watching from my seat here in the chamber. host: what is the biggest concern from candidates when he's trying to recruit them? why don't they want to run? guest: over and over when i was talking to people for this piece, the answer was family. often it was candidates' wives

or husbands. sometimes it was more extended things. a fun story. the wife of senator sherrod brown from ohio, she has become a go to woman on the democratic side for people running for office, because her husband is a u.s. senator, she's a columnist and she was telling me that when her husband was running, she was the person trying to pull back the reins and tell not to run. she said when they got into the race, two people jump out of an unmarked van in suits to steal her garbage. leagues andbig people take this seriously and it may impact your life. the husbands and wives, they have to try to convince them. it's not as the candidate, but the family that does not want them to run. host: we're taking your calls and comments in this section. we are talking with shane goldmacher on his speech on why anyone would want to run for

congress. the numbers are on the screen now if you would like to give us a call. i want to read a tweet -- the talk about some of the concerns these candidates raise. how do the committee chairman, is recruiters, quell the concerns? guest: they're basically matchmakers. they want to find candidates's wife or husband who can reach out to the particular person and say this is somebody who had the same experience that you are worried about. debbie wasserman schultz, when there is a wavering mother who's got young kids and she's not sure whether she wants to run

for congress or not while the kids are young, they have debbie wasserman schultz to call her and she says "armen young mother with the two twins and kept my family. back in family" situationdifferent they might have senator kirsten gillibrand call from new york. when she had a young family, she moved them down here. so they deploy different people depending on the situation, depending on what the person's question is: . most recruiters say the number one thing they do in the process is figure out what people are concerned about. if it's family, a person who has the same situation. if it's the salary, $170,000 is a lot of money. some of these people are multimillionaires. ron johnson from ohio is a u.s. senator. he is worth millions and millions of dollars. they have to figure of how to balance all those things. host: we should run through the rest of the recruiters. for the national republican congressional committee is greg

walden, a republican from oregon. the national republican senatorial committee, is gary moran, a republican senator from kansas. -- jerry moran. and michael bennet, a democrat of colorado for the national democratic senatorial committee. we're taking your calls. michigan up first from on our democrat line. good morning. caller: i just want to make a comment. question, why would you want to be a congressman? why would you not want to be a congressman? it is more profitable than organized crime. serven wait around for -- your term in congress and then end up getting cozy with

lobbyists. as the ceo of sun company you get a contract for and then you are multimillionaire. host: how hard a sell is it? how deep are the recruiting lists? is it a matter of getting anybody to position or the right person? guest: that's the key question. what the people would love to be a member of congress. question for the political committees and outside interest groups that want people to run for congress is finding the right person. host: and when in their mind makes a right candidate? guest: a democrat who can win in a republican area or a republican who can win in a democratic area. this year you saw a lot of theering in kentucky for democrats. senator mitch mcconnell, the minority leader, that the state he represents. in kentucky, the democrats are looking for a strong candidate who can win in the republican- leaning states. they have had a little trouble.

ashley judd is the latest person who tried to get into that race and decided not to run. the problem extends elsewhere. democrats are looking for strong candidates in georgia. they have very few options next year in the u.s. senate. similarly, republicans are looking for strong candidates in democratic areas of the country. the political plainfield will be fought in the middle. if you can find a strong republican who can win new york city, that's a great candidate. most folks, even the ones who want to run for congress, might not be that strong a candidate. so you want to find someone who can win and who can win in parts of the country that are challenging for that party. host: the last caller talked about some reasons you might want to be a congressman. this on twitter -- guest: that's a huge part. we asked about the local reporters is a thankless job. they're spending their entire

time trying to find money from special-interest, from zero people, and from the internet, to grow grass roots support. it's a huge amount of their time. during the time congress is in session, lawmakers in the evening as fund-raisers. in the morning a breakfast sometimes steps from the capital. it's a lot of work. some of it's not all that much fun for the members. none of them like fund-raising. host: these committees you point in your story spans $600 million in 2012. 2014,are preparing for the first fundraising numbers just came out. committeeatic senate raised $13.7 million in the first quarter this year. the national republican senatorial committee, $6.9 million. ,he democratic house committee $22.6 million raised in the first quarter of the year.

the republican house committee, $17.5 million in the first quarter of the year. guest: the money makes a big difference especially in the new era of superpac's, which often outspends particular candidates and it makes a huge difference for them to have more money. they get cheaper rates for ads. forthat calling and dialing dollars ends up benefiting the particular candidates even though it may not be the best thing for democracy. host: we're talking about congressional reporting. phyllis is up next from illinois on the republican line. your honor with shane goldmacher. caller: good morning. i have a suggestion. ofulled up the years congress, the senate and house, recently, it was 6000 years of old men and women sitting there. it is an oligarchy. why don't we start switching to

a unicameral? form unicameral? dump the delegates. then you knock out the lobbyists. get better,ntry to perhaps to be dramatic changes. nebraska and a couple other states have very successfully operated under that. form of that i would like to hear your comments. host: phyllis talked about your suggestions for the government. here's another for you to consider -- yes, fair enough. i think there is a lot of efforts to be made out there to figure out what is the best way to change our government system. frankly, is pretty well set. folks are not looking at changing the system. nebraska is the only state in

the country with a unicameral legislature. but there's no serious discussion in congress about that. she mentioned term limits, but that's an issue being played out at the state level. lots of states in the 1990's created term limits and quite a few have been peeling them back in recent years. it does not guarantee there will be less money raised. it just means there's more constant race to raise money because everyone is always looking for the next office they want to run for. , the idea ofter one term. number of times you are running for congress, whether everett two years for house member or a senate years for member, is that a selling point for the senate campaign committees? guest: definitely. epicycle the campaign committees compete against one another. , where onen georgia of the potential a strong democratic candidates for open seats is a congressman named john barrow.

he has proved an ability to win over and over in a conservative district as a moderate democrat. the democrats in the house want him to run for his seat again. in the senate where there is an open seat, the democrats would like him to run there. the chief democratic strategist says it's a pretty good selling point, six years. he asked to run once every campaign cycles vs every single. time for the single for the senate, they have a little easier time getting people to make the leap. it's a more appealing john. you are one of 100. especially with the rules in the senate, if you get the ability to come up legislation and have your say a lot more. host: we're taking your calls and spots on congressional recruiting, the lay of the land for 2014. republicans can give us a call at 3881. democrats, 3880. independents --

we're talking with shane goldmacher of national journal. on twitter -- nott: no, they're recruiting people to work in the congress, but often they follow them. if they have a strong staff, they bring them with them to the capital. host: they bring their campaign staff over to be professional staff? guest: yes. congress is a political place and a lot of them cut their teeth on political campaigns, not just working on the policy arena. in terms of staff turnover, i don't know. it's a fairly young institutional. a lot of the staff are young,

particularly for house members. the more senior people tend to work on committees and with senior lawmakers they have been with often for their whole career. host: let's go to john from herndon, virginia, on our democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just want to follow up the previous caller. the reality is politicians listen to the people who pay more money. as a voter, usually when we elect someone, we want to make sure he's listening to us rather than people who pay more money for corporate america. when we learn something about last election, the people spending millions of dollars always kept a first call. others don't get nothing. the fact of the matter is when congressman stay there 30 years in office, he's out of ideas. we need young people. we are part of the problem. we don't have to only blame the

congressman. we have to blame ourselves. we know that when a person gets more power, he wants to extend his power to get more stuff. the reality is what we see in america and it's a shame. we elect someone for 30 years and all of a sudden [indiscernible]. thanks for taking my call. host: now a question on twitter -- that's an interesting question. for the democratic side, in his been much more of a challenge. on the republican side there's been a big schism between the tea party, which is a more citizen-run apparatus, and the party establishment. there's been a successful group of individuals to a broken through against the wishes of the party.

some of the biggest names on the washington side of the aisle ran for congress or senate such as marco rubio, a very mainstream now and seen as a party leader, when he ran in 2010, the senate republican campaign committee endorsed his opponent and try to muscle him out of the race. he said he nearly dropped out. the establishment republican party decided to push him out of the race. he said that helped to galvanize conservative supporters for his cause prepares an ability for individuals to break through, especially republicans because they're such a warring faction now. they are people on the right edge of the party able to push through and pushed against the establishment. host: in your pc to say a few of them have caused problems for sc in recent years such as christine o'donnell. guest: she's a good example. when she ran in 2010 in

delaware, she beat a very popular republican congressman who had been governor before. this guy was on a path to the u.s. senate. she beat him in a republican primary. if she was not supported by the party apparatus. the leading tea party groups did not support her either, but some did. and she won a primary. the problem for republicans is she lost in the general election. "i'm not the famous ad a witch," which was not a big selling point for being a u.s. senator. host: would you put ted cruz into that category of folks able to break your? guest: absolutely. he was a person who ran against the party establishment. host: now he's working for nsrc. guest: one of the most interesting things to watch is his role in the party. he won in an extensive primary last year against a well funded, wealthy lieutenant governor from texas, a mainstream establishment figure who is also a conservative.

but ted cruz said i'm going to run anyway. he was an four-star general. he won despite the fact he was outspent and the party was not supporting him. not support him and he won anyway. his role as vice chairman of recruiting for the republican party. like him tould provide cover potentially to make sure they can avoid a bloody primaries or have people come out who are anti-party establishment like christine o'donnell and todd akin, last year lost a race that was very winnable, for the republican party. it's not clear what ted cruz will do. he did not make it clear, but it did not sound like he wanted to leave it to washington from should run and who should not. host: we're taking your calls. joel is up next from plano, texas, republican. good morning. caller: good morning.

you had a good program last night with brian lamb. on.er congressman here is a crook who was pressured by haley barbour and all these lobbyists to do the wrong thing. many of these people are doing. this doing host: york talked about the congressman from ohio? caller: right. should pass legislation that would put the normal person in jail a long time ago. he sits down there and still has privileges. and he still gets a pension and still gets health care. these people get benefits. they have a vested rights after five years. about healthplain care. last night on 60 minutes, the bill they passed about insider- i don't know if they

passed it retained the bill over the last session, repealed half the bill, so staffers can do this. this is an outrage. you hear this and everybody says how honest people are, they work hard. these guys crossed the line all the time because of the money. host: if you want to see the interview that he's talking about, you can check out our question and enter program our website, c-span.org. cincinnati, ohio, independent. your thoughts on congressional recruiting in 2014. caller: first, i totally agree with joel on the amount of corruption in congress. i was on the ballot in 2010 and 2012 as a green party candidate, which just about make independent, for the simple reason there's not a lot of support, 5%. money is the issue of politics.

host: were you running in a congressional district in indiana? caller: in cincinnati, district 1. eve is the 16-year incumbent and the reason is money. he buys his c. everett two years. there's no way for anybody to do anything about it. yeatwouys his seat every years. we could do away with personhood. would add that if you can vote, you cannot be spending money on a campaign. host: since you ran for congress in cincinnati, what was your experience running against these campaign committees, or another,s dccc

did you interact with them? caller: i was pretty much ignored. i spent less than $1,000 on my campaign. people don't give money to people who are not going to do them favors. it is hard to get people. green party people and libertarian party people usually have an incumbent's billing $2 million. steve has $1 million or whatever he wants to win that seat. that's just the way it is. third-partyr, a movement for independence movement in this country so that we can actually have a political infrastructure on the present level that displaces the democratic and republican parties. rich.thanks for calling, tell us about the label and heading into 2014. he talked about running for

house seats. what is the current breakdown of the house democratic and republican? guest: in the house, the democrats are 17 each side of getting a majority. to do that would be a historic achievement. since 1900, since the 19th century those number of seats have not been one in a midterm election in which a sitting president is from your party, literally try to buck history to try to take the majority. on the senate side, the republicans ar six seats shot of a majority. that's more in line historical with what can be done. there's the six-year itch. the public ready to put in people who are not the president's spokesperson those are the challenges. for the democrats, it's a quantitative issue. any 17 seats. that's a lot. if you recruit these candidates all over the country, you need to win republican part of the nation's. on the senate side, but he is

avoiding primary battles. with ted cruz. they hope to mediate such an issue. to avoid another todd akin or christine o'donnell. that's the landscapes. right now they are seriously out there trying to find these candidates, scarring the company to get the best hopes to run. host: let's go to david from long island, new york, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. have an issue with how much money a lot of these congress people and senators make. i also have an issue with how much money they spend to run for office and how long they stay in office. it seems to me that the campaign has gotten away from what the actual candidate is going to do ow to stealple but hwo t seats are get votes or make the population happy with the money they are spending for votes. if you talk to these people, they don't know the people.

they don't know what they are doing for the people. they don't receive anything extra -- increases to social security, increases to food stamps has not been there, just the amount of people collecting them. unfortunately, like quality has not improved. the people that they are voting for, they just see a big party every two years or four years or six years and they just want to vote whatever sounds good at the moment. it seems that the politicians are playing politics with google, twitter, and all sorts of other social media to obtained these votes. just vote for me because i'm the party with the most money who can demagogue the other party very quickly and shut them up very quickly on talk shows or news shows and nobody from the other party shows up to the other news shows to do interviews. host: a chance to jump in.

guest: one of the issues that comes up as people are worried about money in politics and lawmakers raising money and answering to special-interest. there's no question and it plays a huge role in washington. -- what a campaign committees raised in the first quarter. the numbers for the senate democrats is $30 million. that is a huge amount of money. there's no question it is a big role. the lawmakers themselves see how much money has to be raised. is speechy is money and these candidates can spend what they want and they can raise money from what they want. it plays a big part. there is no question that there's a lot of frustration in the public about it. it is not what can be done in the short term -- there is not much that can be done in the short term the change that.

host: we will go to barbara for new york, new york on our independent line. that, imy idea was wondered if a law limiting people to be able to contribute money only to candidates who represent the area in which they can vote. since corporations have been deemed people a corporation can only give money to candidates that represent the area where the headquarters is located, something along those lines. i realize the public would not be -- it is not likely to pass. i wonder how that would pay out if it could pass. guest: i think you answered your own question. money is speech. when it's in my ability to spend money it somewhere else would be unconstitutional. -- limiting my ability to spend money somewhere else would be

unconstitutional. michael bloomberg is spending his money all across the country. mark prior voted against the gun control measure for a background checks. frankly there are a lot of people who do not like that. in arkansas they are calling him an outsider. in your article, why would anybody want to run for conference -- run for congress, you talk about his recruiting groups. talk about their role. >> these are two different groups. emily's list is a group for democratic women who are pro- choice. they are big about credit these women to run for congress and u.s. senate. last year was the most women senators ever in the senate.

massachusetts emily's list as -- and they never stop working. they try to build the bench all the way out from the local level to the state legislature to the congress to the u.s. senate. ultimately it would be a democratic woman president. an antitaxt there is -- anti-tax group and their coaches to raise a candidate similar to that run. a bundle it together and give it to these candidates. they are trying to get the people to run for office. they are not quite as aggressive as going out there and finding these candidates. to make them come to them. they have a congress from downtown. -- a conference room downtown. backed candidates they did not want.

aboutate -- the top lot the role money play in politics. action opened the plainfield a little bit. not to everybody. it has changed the dynamics quite a bit. the power is far more diffuse in terms of candidate recruitment. host: let us go to mary from coronado, california on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. watched the house and senate -- the republicans' work one day of the week and they are gone to their states every weekend. that is our tax dollars we are paying for them to work in washington. we vote the man to work in what -- we vote them in to work in washington.

they have their lobbyists in washington, they do not do anything. they used to go home once every three months. why is it every week they have to go home to do nothing? they do not do anything in washington, especially the republicans. some of the democrats stay and work. the democrats can fix this money situation. it used to be to thousand 500, the limit they can donate -- 2500, the limit they can donate, and now it is too much corruption. i am frustrated at not like what is going on in the house and senate. people need to get educated before the vote. >> that is mary from california. the congressmen on recess this

week are members already going home and raising money and campaign this week? guest: they are long gone from washington. it was a question of how late on friday night they were going to stay. needed to pass this legislation regarding furloughs and air traffic controllers. they made a decision to make sure they got out of here. in washington called these recesses district work period. theiro home and talk to constituents. one of of the callers with this idea that people used to be in washington more. if you talk to all comers from the capital they say that relationships used to be formed on weekends. people used to spend their time here. that does not exist anymore. -- i spoke this story to him.

he said he has been in congress for a number of years and he spent only one week in washington. he said that one weekend was about that for the president's inauguration. folks did not stay here. they go back home whether it is for family, a constituent work, or for recess. washington asn much as they used to be. host: 1 of the issues to talk about in your story including pete sessions, we're trying to get more female candidates in the republican party. can you tell me what he said? examples a startling that he was recruiting a woman to run for congress in 2010. she is only 36 now. she has two children. he said he ran into quite a bit of resistance in the republican party.

people question whether she had what it takes to run for conference -- run for congress. the party just went through a recent autopsy with the announced $10 billion to spend on outreach to those communities. leaderson who is the reporter said he began to resistance in the halls of power because he thought there would be distracted. he was pushing for her. he was hoping there would accept her as the party picked. she won and a rally kicked off. host: we're taking your calls and comments. we have about 10 minutes left with scena goldmacher. goldmacher.a gene is on our independent line. good morning. caller: go ahead.

i want to call to talk about the man in texas who called a few minutes ago. if you all want to know the .ruth to go to facebook i am a vietnam this ryan. if you want to know the truth, finding facebook. run for congress? guest: i did not but i am trying to run for president. host: let us go to lee from florida on our democratic line. good morning. caller: i am wondering if you could address the issue of the gender -- of the gerrymandering and how it renders recruitment from moderate

points of view from running, especially in republican districts. certainly democratic as well. guest: that is a really good question. there are 435 house districts in the concourse -- in the congress. the vast majority of them are overwhelmingly democratic or overwhelmingly republican the number of moderates have been going down and down. 90 seatsno more than in the country that could be remotely labeled as competitive. some say 50 out of 435. -- those seats are 70% republican creed it is hard for republicans -- it is hard for democrats to get to 50%. it plays a huge role.

thatere are only 50 seats are competitive then you need to find 50 strong candidates to run. we talk about political unicorns, the republican who can win in new york city and the democrat who can win in t kentucky. they can make the democrats win in south carolina where there are special elections coming up. mitt romney won with 18 percent point. democrats have a chance there because denominated a former governor, mark sanford. he went down to argentina and disappeared for a while. stephen co-chair's sister is a candidate. those candidates are

meeting and for the first time today. that is at 7:00 p.m. tonight. or forut c-span talk details about that debate. froms go to monte now portsmouth, ohio on the republican line. caller: good morning. republican ever since house about a vote. i started voting when ronald reagan was running for president. i have been in the military and support the republican party. now i am to the point, because of all of this congressional , i dogn committee funds not think they are playing fair anymore. my candidates three closely here. i try to pick one that has the list connection to some affiliation -- the least connection to some affiliation.

i am a democrat, i am voting democrat. i republican, voted republican. i chose not to do this because of this campaign committee. because of the caller earlier from california, i am with her. -- need to before informed about who is in these candidate's corners. you have to know everything. it is not going out and casting a vote anymore. you have to be educated for this. i will take my answer off the air. host: something these committees are seeing more and more of, being turned off by the involvement? guest: this something i mentioned, where the republican party can heavily to support the punt and it backfired. it is such a tough job. the former chief strategist for the center of republicans for the last two campaigns said they would travel across the country and he would meet these candidates and their cousins.

they would not be in the main plaza downtown. was not seen as the pick the party. it is not a positive things these days. folkestone not want be associated with washington. >> but i want the money and the support. guest: they just do not want to id'ed.ed -- be they are not popular. host: we go to kevin on our democratic line. good morning. caller: i really want to thank all of your callers calling in. they seem to me like they are all very intelligent and highly informed. it seems to me the system of government we have here is not working very well. the house, senate,

and the president that basically makes the rules for us because everything was put to a vote and the american people were allowed to vote on how they wanted things done. it would be completely different. of republicans throughout history have failed. i think it is easy to see why. thank you for taking my call. guest: you are talking about the idea of a referendum on a ballot measure. a lot of states cover that, like california politics. it has enough its own problems. you have the voters split in different ways. the same groups to spend money on campaigns spend money on these ballot measures. the flood the airwaves with television ads. if you saw in maryland last year, there was quite a bit of advertisement about gambling and the public had a vote on it. there tends of millions of dollars spent on those ads. reporterne goldmacher, of the story "why would anyone

want to run for congress?" thank you for joining us. up next we will do our weekly " your money closed " segment where we look at federal money with luke rosiak. first news update from c-span radio. >> it is 9:16 a.m.. consumer spending members in this hour show an increase last month with higher incomes helping to offset an increase in social security taxes. the captain in january 1. on friday the cover mitt said -- the government said consumer spending rose in january at a faster pace than more than two years. at the opening bell cow futures are up 50 points. as consumers spent more last month state funding for prekindergarten programs dropped last year by the largest ever. states are spending less per child than they did a decade ago recording to a report being released this morning.

more than half a million of the students are in programs that do not even meet standards suggested by industry experts that would qualify for federal dollars. a conferencevering on the report with on the token -- on the report with anrie duncan. a personnel announcement expected today at the white house. president barack obama expected -- toinate the new nominate the charlotte mayor as the secretary. prominence after bringing the democratic national convention to charlotte last year. watch the event at two o'clock 3.m. eastern on c-span 16she married at the age of and helped teach her husband to be better reader and wider. during the civil war she snuck

supplies tuesday union in the tennessee mountains. but the time her president critic by the time her husband takes office she is ill. meet allies johnson, wife of and johnson as to continue our series on first ladies with your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. tonight, live on c-span and c- span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. each money we look at how your money is being spent in a different sector of the federal government. we look at private-sector companies that depend on federal all,acts for most, if not their work. we're joined by "washington times" correspondents luke rosiak. you recently looked at federal pay for executives at federal contracts to firms. why focus on executive salaries

and what did you find? guest: aras a level of fat built into the contracting process in government procurement. from 200g has risen billion a decade ago to 550 billion. while you have to look at every component producing the deficit , a waste, fraud, and it is in house activity, there is a certain level. there are profits made for shareholders in the case of publicly traded companies. their salary is sometimes a very hefty salary for these private businessmen. we talked about bringing in the federal work force in dealing with personal issues there. you cannot make on it salaries. you're going to top out at 200 grand. there are people who are essentially federal employees in the sense that their source of revenue is entirely a tax payer funded. they are making more than $5 billion per year. host: the headline of the story of " the washington times," --

what are the kinds of companies you looked at in this investigation? all over the map. there are service providers and procurement. sometimes that he added in the procurement you read it in the procurement firms are valuable because they are purchasing kurds and services from other companies. the purchasing goods and services from other companies. contractors say there is all this red tape and it can basically help us through that by being the middleman. it is unclear what the value is. and because we look at federal covered -- and because you look at federal contracts and but it seems too high. people would ask why it is costing as much.

the: the company that sold apple computer's you talked about was the red river computer company. >> they are a small business of a have preference. the agency had an incentive to rally through small business. host: here is your chart talking about the annual salaries of the top five employees. $5,053,000, the number of employees in that company is just 68. the revenue in millions is $189 million. guest: i am surprised to see an executive making millions of dollars in private sector large companies. some of these are tiny firms. list seesany on that the revenue. that does contract. that is what they do. much are limits to how

contract and can build a government. they can build an $763,000 for the top five executives. anre is no limit on how much executive can make when they are full-time government contractors. they can pay more out in profit. major limitedto a trade companies. ron an unintended side effect was that the contracting threshold got way out of whack. of those companies are tinier than the $60 billion revenues. host: he is a correspondent with "the washington times closed " and wrote several pieces on federal contractors. if you want colin and have a question or comment on this issue, the phone lines are on the screen. [applause]

you talked a lot about law allowing for the reimbursement of executive salaries. there are folks calling for the lowering of the cap. guest: the senate voted to reduce it to $400,000. the house agreed we were unable to work out. they are overdue for putting out a 2013 cap. it is one to be well over $800,000. host: phone lines are open for you. give us a call in. i want to show you a letter that came out march 6, 2013. this is from the united states senate offices of barbara

mikulski. loweringalling for a of those caps. how did these contractors justify these salaries they are making? guest: the argument here is that they need pay high salaries in order to attract talent. they are essentially public employees and the republicans are often arguing that public employees are overpaid.

there is an anti -- there is an inconsistency there. if the government can get employees that are confident the contract should be able to two big. to too. the threshold is set at what employees of big publicly traded employees get. the government can turn around and bill them and pay more in profits on top of that. host: one of those contractor groups talking about this proposal that shelby and to lower thetrying salary-cap. he is the president and ceo of that group that deals with federal contractors. he says --

he also says much of the rhetoric on contractor conversation is intentionally misleading and reflects the stark reality of today's contracting environment. we are taking your calls on this issue a federal contractor pay. the executive salary is a very big issue for federal contractors. the investigative reporter from "the washington times closed what looked at this in a recent edition. we go to steven from beechwood, ohio on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. watching this and listening to it is confirming my worst fears about government inefficiency. it is just making me very angry. what we can do to put a stop to it. guest: the president is trying to reduce the rate at which they can reimburse for executives to two hundred thousand dollars. after the house bill moved in last year he ducked down.

host: from the 700 some it is now down to -- guest: last year he was tried to give it down to 400. now he was tried to take it down -- at no one should make more than the vice president himself. that is just the top five ranking employees. expand -- he wants to expand that to all employees. that is what people are really concerned about. to a certain extent they acknowledged that the at least understand the fear that people feel when they read about going to tax payers and millions of dollars. they are really concerned about not being able to build over $250,000 for specialized workers. they say we will not be able to attract top talent in computer science with salaries those high. host: 8 tweet that came in --

guest: i thi you see the same level of inefficiencies in local contracting. same thingsy of the in the district of columbia. return ont low he dollar. host: what is it pastor contract? guest: the company gets a contract by using a reference point, it could be a veteran or the location. they willg et the contract because of the preference points. it is very blatant int eh data seeysis work where you

pairs of companies. there was a company that got over a dozen stimulus' context. they subtracted about 90 sect -- about 90% of the work to accompany two blocks away, which was not a disabled veteran. it is companies going to companies. more or less fraud. it cannot be taking place but it happened pretty frequently. that is what a pass through is. it acts -- it adds an extra layer of overhead. there are several reasons why contracts seem more expensive than they need to be. one of the reasons is there is overhead at to many different stages. it is going through three or four different countries -- three or four different companies. on ouret us go to iowa independent line. john, you are on with luke rosiak.

caller: the much for taking my call. i was wondering if youest cod comment on the amount of money spent annually on military contractors. i think what people would be surprised to know that we have more private contractors that we do actual u.s. forces. and what kind of a grip the industrial military complex has on this center of our government? host: that acquisition is huge and growing. the dot acknowledges the contract is out of hand. part of the reason they have contacted at some much is that they do not even have the institutional knowledge without the contractors. basically they rely on them. contractor should be disbarred. we continue doing business with them because we would be lost without them.

you see cases where even the cutting offices themselves are contractors. you have contractors overseeing contractors. it is really getting out of hand and i think the dod acknowledges that. thatng out how to do with is not so easy. obviously some of the largest contractors there. amount of tremendous profit in those companies. dod is going to take a big budget hit in the mice to trim that bad. you look at -- fore probably going to need the thousands of people on the same day they announced as early as they also announced to give the ceos 8 $2 million raise. they're still a huge money in defense contractor.

when you see the profit level the do have a navigation for the stockholm. i think it is still be viable business with less confidence. host: against rights and. -- a guest writes in -- is that something you have looked into? guest: i have not. host: another story in "the washington times close " to date --

something we see a lot of? guest: clearly these contracts are having an inordinate amount of political influence. doubt people are reluctant to take these guys on, even when in the stock about spending. it is not to much to ask to be consistent and say that we need to be looking at every component of the budget and make all of these cut here and there and everyone. one proponents of that this contract in. willingeing lawmakers to take on contractors. maybe your can see schism in the republican party with the libertarian-leaning republicans and the t type who are all about

small government are going to take on the life of america. from annapolis, maryland on our democratic line. good morning. caller: i am just following along. about halliburton's contacting the takes everything -- that takes care of everything -- how was the with bp cominge out? host: something you have looked into? guest: i have not. certainly the government is relying on contractors for services that net one time -- that has net at one time carried out by public employees. government employees are

overpaid -- you're probably paying more for services and halliburton many would be put 40 ipads. they are making some areas more than any other type of government or employee. there is a level of profit that is built in. you talked about red river computer company. give us another example. services, only eight employees but an annual a salary of -- a $60 million in revenues. what did they do? guest: they really cannot do anything at all. they turn around and give it to a company that does ncc construction. the reason the company gets all of these contracts is because they are a minority contractor.

of contracts have been roped off. built into the system? guest: the agencies have to choose which cut that they are on the set aside so in the end they can meet these goals. basically this company that is out of detroit, they're politically connected. the hired a good friend of former detroit mayor who is in jail right now. is what these guys do. get a contract, handed off to someone else and profit. contracts, is it cheaper if the government provided some services? guest: i think it could be but the government would have to beef up their -- they would have

to go on a hiring spree and that nothing that is callable right now. i do not know of that would be the best thing over all. ceainly we talk about a bloated public workforce we're seeing the same thing in the private-sector work people are getting very wealthy off of taxpayer funds. they are a private company but they are not really because the money is coming from taxpayers. it is entirely separate from a company that is operating primarily out of the private sector. host: for federal employees receiving a period of pay freezes. guest: exactly. next fromicas arlington, virginia. -- jess is next from arlington, virginia. caller: and in the federal market in the dc area. it is the most highly regulated industry in america out of the nuclear industry.

rules andplenty of laws that apply to this. the idea that more laws are going to fix what private companies do with their resources and the profits is sort of folly. host: can use to the type of contract work that you do? procurement advice and consulting. host: defense and nondefense? caller: non-defense. host: can you talk about the roles these guys have to work under? guest: that is correct and looking at executive pay and profit is one fact built into these contracts. it is probably not the most important. one of the main reasons was to the contract's cost more than they should for whatever is being done is because of all the rules and ready people have to jump through. i think that is something hard to address. there have been some reforms streamlining the acquisition process. be able to adjust to

the work the way you would in the private sector. that is not the case at all right now. part of the reason is because the authorities will tell you what to do it how did do it. help youate firms will meet your end goal. do not tell them what steps you need to do because you are not letting them do what they do best. >> does your company find its of spending to comply with regulations, rather than spending money on the work product itself? there's a large step he mentioned, simple compliance, make sure you understand everything as you sign for a contract. companies understand what it means to engage in business with the federal open mitt because it is such a complex step. there are so many elements to an

rp. political solicitation would have 700 pages. if you are a business owner you want to see which page aside up to. there is a direct cause -- a direct cost of a distending the system and the process and how to bid for this contract. on twitter -- guest: some contracts are federally bid. one of the ones we see a lot of abuse is with the number of bidders is restricted to a certain type of contract. a lot of contractors, in spite of the theory that it publicly advertised a huge portion -- host: does your company is one bad contracts?

-- one-bid contracts? generally openot for broader competition. he mentioned the service is there is the element of large government-wide acquisition contracts. the categories of contract and then at reducing the open market. they go to a select number of pre-qualified companies. it is part of the problem. it is part of the inefficiency that happens when something is so-called repeated in the open market. >> thank you. guest: i think the regulations keep smaller and nimble firms into the market. if you look at tech startups that are doing these incredible things in silicon valley and such. you compare them to the guys that are doing business with,

before the federal government, were behemoths'. companies that aren't the nimble that have reached their pledges are higher. why can the small guys get in there when the issue the under tweet -- when they show you the ability to get under there. it is not layers that are added in for the past few contracts. bid is not as players added into compensate people in the form of a creek as profits -- of the egregious profits. it is people getting paid to do a job. it keeps the smaller guys out. host: he is an investigative reporter for "the washington times." . he covered local news for --

this feature from last week, the ongoing series of reports you're doing. what are some of the other sources. host: the first to do with contacting and the level -- it is very easy to show pass routes that are a legal. there is a company in the u.s. that hooked up to a building in california. a very simple job. only a couple hundred thousand dollars. they put in a bid and the f a company -- they got the contract. how are they going to do some small work in california? that is something. jobssaid the key is for there, they had compliance, ministry, and accounting. none of those people had anything to do with actual getting in that building and

passing on the siding. only four people were required to do the work. they all came from recent contract. if you look at this from's history and to the sinking every time, the contracts based on the racial status and have somebody else to of the work. we see all kinds of companies doing that. the taxpayers get no return for that. whenies get to choose their point set aside a contract. the opening goal is to be that 23%. hardware,sco computer they say they are on to reserve the contract for small business. cisco is one of the biggest companies in the country. why are you want to get a contractor from a small business to buy cisco hardware? but host: last week's store was

on executive ks for contractors. what do you have planned down the road? this storybook that executive pay in part because of what private companies. we do not know how much these companies are making. i only looked at a small sliver of defense for contractors. they are big publicly traded companies. those are going to close separate those are disclosed separately. they do not have a report to the agency's lack the privately held guys to. we've got 77 privately how community settings. it is a lot because of how small is guys are. next up is to of a publicly traded companies. the profit that these companies are making -- they had the most profitable quarter last quarter. the even though times are supposed to be tight, these

companies are making billions of dollars per year. net in the series is going to be over all profits for this massive industry of defense contracting. even paying small business any revenue. host: read is up next from union, washington. good morning. caller: i am a software developer. i have been doing it for 22 years. i have heard people call washington journal and say they fought in korea, vietnam, this storm one, and iraq. pick somebodyto who works in the industry. just five days ago i quit working on a contract for the department of defense. i will say i was in on a team of seven developers, me being the only american.

the particular whips it was being revamped to security with some new features i myself can do in four months. there were seven developers late is to do it for a year and the product manager. i also worked on another project where isame contractor was barely in on it, listening to if you e-mail's. this was right before i quit. you can hear the same amount of fat. what do have is a general contractor chewing on the fat of the american taxpayer charging five to 10 times the amount of money contract to take. we as american people need a stronger presence in the equation. i am going to use this sector i work in and talk to the boots on the ground and ask them to give should this take

it how much it cost? compare that to what the product is sold at. we have a level of auditors that can keep this an honest. maybe products like this are completely different. like software development is something that small business can do. you have the auditors and then have one government representatives that it represents the aggregate of the project and mixture is on time and done right. there is no general contractors. that's my comment. i'm glad you mentioned i.t.. guest: i have a computer programming background. i have a sense of what things would cost. computer programming is inexpensive. you just need a guy with a laptop. time and time again you see them pay inordinate amounts to make a

website. for a couple hundred thousand dollars. maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration because it is a big project. there are teams, millions of dollars allocated for i.t. procurement for tasks that one guy can do in a couple of months. it is blows my mind. the top people in other fields and they do the same thing. part of the reason i think government has very little expertise in house -- if i have got a problem with my car i have to take it to a mechanic and trust what he says and what ever he tells me it is going to cost i have to trust because i did not know anything about cars. personnot have a single in government who can provide that. they don't have a simple mechanic internally who can say "here is what you have to look at.

bricks --new form of of brakes." they do not know how much it should cost. when a contractor comes along and asked if you want and iphone application that is when the cost to a million dollars. has access to a trivial iphone application for $1 million. to a certain extent you need a little bit of expertise in house. as far as why these bids are so high, and the previous caller mentioned, part of it is restrictions that have to do -- that tell you how to do the contact. in terms of i.t. spending dc government using outdated languages, like -- i.t. spending you see government using outdated languages.

the government is telling you how to do the job and you have to work around them. like the reason is set, a lot of companies view the government as a sucker. of knows the lay of the land. you can kind of highball government and they are not going to aggressively barking you down. host: on twitter -- guest: contractor's point out that they do have to submit the tell paperwork. the government is aware of the different line items in whatever plan this government subcontractors have. what did they have the expertise to value that is another question. if you are not an i.t. guy can be an auditor and be very good at financial accountability. if you do not have the main expertise are you want to evaluate whether when you're

doing is good for naught. on our republican line. al was wondering if your guest had any opinion or any comment on the previous caller about defense contracts. the revolving door that a lot of former government employees after their demo much time in -- afterovernment their minimum time in the government, it seems the military is the same to me. it is just one big open system. i know your guest used the word "coalition be " oftentimes i get the impression it is just to boys' network there. host: something for a feature story? guest: it is very accurate. it is a good old boys network. in terms of the previous caller

mentioning the way that the small businesses can come in and undercut the big times -- the big guys, the problem is we do not have enough contacting officials. we have to do bundling rather than give five separate contracts to buy small businesses we will commit to one big guy and it is an ongoing contract. that is a barrier to small businesses. they're good at playing the bay -- the plane became but that doing it officially. -- but back at doing it efficiently. there are more people that are reviewing bids to find the best ones and overseeing them. we have so meeting -- we have so many contractors but so few people overseeing them. one way we may deal to streamline that is use of the

acquisition force. let us go to john and from iowa on our republican line. caller: you had a lady in from the gao and she was mentioning that a lot of these programs 6 times h1v1 visas are to 7 times redundant. it seems to me that the government can run on one 20th of the mountain expense. since we have been printing about a third the government spends, it is printed money. the government has gained so much power and the disturbing -- in disbursing these massive amounts of money. host: any thoughts on his comments? guest: everyone is looking for ways to trim the federal deficit.

the of your mitt is one that hasn't gotten as much attention. host: market is up next from baltimore, maryland on our democratic line. caller: i have a question. one of the comments stated that saudi contractors are passing through 90 percent of the work. thes my understanding that firm itself have to perform at 51% of the work. you weredering if looking into that and how much information. host: there are rules to prevent against pastor is. guest: they are pretty lenient for some contracts. they have to be supported by the actual contract. for most contracts, for example construction, is between 15 and 25%. i can give you any number of examples where the amount

performed ws more like 10%. it is hard to prove definitively. there are certain exemptions to that. they will exclude the cost ofm aterials. does notnment itself detract of that. when i tracked down to sit positively that these contractors are violating the law they were saying this is not their department. they referred me to someone else who referred me to the original. these rules seem to be a bureaucratic knot. nobody has an eye on this. in the differences amount that subcontracted outside the preference. when you set aside a contract -- dcly you see may mark way more subcontracting.

75% of the work. 70% of minority contractors filled out most of the work. disabled veterans tend to do relatively better. you see less of what really looks like captive contracting. 40% of the work. less of what looks like fraud with the veterans programs. compare that to one in 10, the worst 10% of small businesses only show up 6%. where minority contractors filing out 70% of the work? the government has not done enough to make some efforts. they have not taken enough action as they should. host: 1 of the callers brought

up the revenant federal program show we did here on "washington journal." you can go to our c-span video library to check up that segment. our guest was the cold clovers. clovers.was nicole an have more luke rosiak, investigative reporter for "washington times." caller: can you hear me? i have a follow-on, like the speaker pointed out the and it is like to

point out that it seems as though we are faulting the contractor where really it is the fault of both not having enough oversight. also the contract itself may be doing something that is not appropriate. host: we will go to paul from dental virginia on our independent line. how're you doing? i have been in the military from 1972 to 1975 -- to 1995. we had our active-duty military to jobs in personnel departments like checking id cars and things like that. contractorsbillion in there, we're getting paid three or four times more money than they were. when i was at one of the other bases my wife has glasses that she took for bookkeeping, human-

resources, and things like that. i want to get your thoughts and the last 20 seconds. guest: there is a lot on what the federal government is making. at the lower levels low- high skilled workers in make more. do we ask contractors to make ?he same sacrifice tax > >> qe1 to take you live to the holocaust memorial where they are marking two decades honoring the memory of the holocaust and honoring leaders to a tribute to the holocaust survivors in washington, d.c.